[GreenYes Archives] -
[Thread Index] -
[Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]
Hello ~ Here's what we're looking at in our region: - the politicians just cancelled a big landfill that was going to take our waste after 2010 (landfills are all publicly owned, at least as P3s, in BC) - instead they promised to cut waste by 70% through recycling and composting - but as part of that package, they are announcing their intent to have in place 680,000 metric tonnes WTEF capacity by 2015, ramping up to 910,000 tonnes by 2035 (note that the region presently disposes of 1.06 million tonnes per year... maybe the planners got the fraction upside down?) - they even announced that the stated cost for "a state of the art WTEF" would be "in the order of $400 million" - As an indication of their priorities, the budgeted figure to bring their single regional composting plant is $35 million. So the way I'm exploring to head this off is: - to repeatedly and publicly praise politicians for the 70% goal, so they get used to being associated with that goal; - to make no public statements about incineration but instead to advise them quietly in private emails that there are practical alternatives to incineration that offer: lower cost, equivalent environmental benefits, greater flexibility ~ and more likely public acceptance. What I'm talking about is MBT. This is based on Eric's sensible suggestion of a "bridge strategy", which was: Several other contributors to the thread testified that MBT is not Zero Waste, but it is a better strategy for ramping down as we approach Zero. Gary Liss contributed the additional point that MBT must be clearly identified in the public's eye (and the budget) in the disposal account, not the Zero Waste/Waste Recovery account. I am thinking the term "stabilized landfill" will communicate this. Rick, what prompted this long thread was the announcement from LA that "Whatever cannot be further recycled or composted from the department's 750,000 weekly customers could be turned into alternative fuels, such as biodiesel or electricity to power our grid, said Alex Helou....? Maybe you could clarify what sort of system is envisioned in the LA plan. Is LA putting any specifics, or even hints like dollar figures, to signal whether this is a low-tech, flexible, down-scalable MBT system ~ or a half billion dollar burner/gasifier? Given the choice, would you really pass over MBT? Helen. At 06:06 PM 1/30/2008, RicAnthony@no.address wrote: In a message dated 1/29/2008 12:17:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, hspie@no.address writes:From what you say, the environmental case for MBT rests on 100% stabilization ("no methane"). |
[GreenYes Archives] -
[Date Index] -
[Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]